EDITORIAL - A ban on dynasties

A young official of the Manila city government has a valid question: why is the ban on political dynasties limited to the Sangguniang Kabataan or youth councils?

Alexander Layos II, officer-in-charge of the Manila city government’s Youth Development and Welfare Bureau, is a law graduate and former SK chairman of Barangay 99 in Tondo. He noted that Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution seeks the prohibition of political dynasties “as may be defined by law.”

Unfortunately for the country, for the past 35 years, the dynasty-dominated Congress has refused to provide the definition and pass an enabling law for this constitutional prohibition. In the absence of an enabling law, political dynasty building has reached shameless proportions all over the country, with clans even taking pride in occupying every available key position in their turfs.

Dynastic families have said it is up to voters to throw them out. But dynasties destroy the system of checks and balances needed for good governance in a democratic system, giving the ruling clan full control without accountability in the utilization of public funds for their personal and partisan purposes. This kind of control also allows such clans to get away with the harassment, intimidation and even murder of their political opponents, eliminating challengers during elections.

A ban on dynasties was approved under Republic Act 10742, the Sangguniang Kabataan Act of 2015, but the ban is limited only to the SK system. This law stipulates that SK candidates “must not be related within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to any incumbent election national official or to any incumbent elected regional, provincial, city, municipal or barangay official, in the locality where he or she seeks to be elected.”

Layos is expressing the sentiment of many when he asked: “Why can’t we apply this to councilors, mayors or congressmen?”

Because there is no enabling law. Congressmen and senators cannot be expected to legislate their dynasties out of office. It should be considered a dereliction of duty by Congress and questioned in court. Perhaps lawyers like Layos can take the initiative in pushing for the passage of that enabling law.